Playwright MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds context by specifying 'since loading the page', which implies temporal scope, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, response format, or potential performance impacts. It doesn't contradict annotations, so it earns a baseline score for adding some value beyond them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a read-only tool with good annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in practical usage context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'includeStatic' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('all network requests since loading the page'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_console_messages' or 'browser_snapshot', which might also provide browser-related data but for different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it should be used after specific browser actions or in conjunction with other tools. This leaves the agent with minimal direction for appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.